Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ratchell
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Keep withdrawn by nominator ( (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)]
Ratchell
- Ratchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable band per
(talk) 12:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
]- Withdrawn by nominator - As per the points raised by (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)]
- Keep per point #2 of Chris Couchois). Article could use improvement but the notability standard is met. - Dravecky (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment
- WP:BAND-#5 says-two albums on a major record label i.e, Decca Records in this case. Their first album Ratchell 1 was not released under Decca record as per the the source [2]
- 6 says- The band must contain two or more independently notable musicians. Chris Couchoisis already nominated AfD.
- 2 says- The band has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. The song in Billboard 200 list in 1972. I can't verify it in Billboard 1972 archives. (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)]
- Keep. These two sources, in addition to Allmusic, show that the group had a charting album. These sources show that both Ratchell and Ratchell II were released on Decca. As for coverage, I'm not seeing much, but there's this reference from the article, this piece from the Evening Independent, plus a pair of brief Billboard write-ups. I have incorporated these sources into the article. For an admittedly obscure band from over 40 years ago, there appears to be sufficient material for an article. Gongshow talk 05:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.